Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:52 pm Not making your children society's problem is responsible. Don't you think?

Absolutely. That's my point. And people who do that are taking no thought for their society....or their children.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:57 pm Absolutely. That's my point. And people who do that are taking no thought for their society....or their children.

Clearly you have a plan to make people keep their unwanted babies. What is your plan for making those same people responsible and thoughtful members of society who look after their unwanted children?

Because if you can't do both - you are shooting yourself in the foot...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:52 pm Is that you offering subsidised contraceptives now?

I've been to the Developing World, and lived there. I can tell you what real poverty is. Nobody in the U.S., save a drug-addled street person to doped up to get on welfare, is so poor they cannot afford contraception. It's really cheap. Abstinence works 100% of the time, too.

There's no substitute for personal responsibility.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:58 pm Clearly you have a plan to make people keep their unwanted babies.

Clearly? No.

There is a vast undersupply of healthy infants in the adoption lists. There are, in fact, 36 waiting families for every child currently being offered for adoption in the U.S.. It's so bad that people are looking abroad for infants. That's a fake problem.

The question is, "Why would a 'mother' prefer to murder her child, rather than giving her child over to a loving family?"

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:08 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:58 pm Clearly you have a plan to make people keep their unwanted babies.

Clearly? No.

There is a vast undersupply of healthy infants in the adoption lists. There are, in fact, 36 waiting families for every child currently being offered for adoption in the U.S.. It's so bad that people are looking abroad for infants. That's a fake problem.

The question is, "Why would a 'mother' prefer to murder her child, rather than giving her child over to a loving family?"

Is that a fact? Citation required . Maybe there are many babies born unsuited for adoption due to perinatal injury, genetic disease, syphilis, alcoholic mothers, or drug addicted mothers. There will be facts which account for why unadoptable babies get to be born. Maybe the would be parents want babies with a certain skin colour. There will be facts from reliable disinterested sources.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:31 pm Is that a fact? Citation required .

https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregn ... e_families

But let's suppose they got it wrong, somehow. Let's say there were only 10 families waiting for every healthy infant. What are the chances that one in those 10 isn't suitable for adopting, and that the 9 from the next child are all also unsuitable, and the 9 from the child next to that are all unsuitable too...

And all of them are so bad that being murdered is better than becoming their child?

Got any odds on such a thing?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:43 pm Really, guy, if this thread bothers you, if my 'simplistic' approach bothers you, then go play in another thread. There are dozens of 'em, all waitin' on you to drop your wisdom into 'em. There's no reason at all for you to waste a jot of your time in this thread, with me and my silly questions.

You have to be reminded of asking the same stupid shit over & over again as if the obvious wasn't obvious enough the first, second and third times, and so on. Not acquainted with the basics of biology?

As I say: if this thread irritates, if I irritate, you're free to indulge yourself elsewhere.

It seems that someone got my last reply here deleted. Well done.

"do you have some evidence to support the claim that teaching responsibility reduces unwanted pregnancy?"

There probably is formal evidence (but I'm far too lazy to track it down).

However, it follows naturally that if someone is successfully taught to be responsible, then they will be, are, responsible.

Parents can do it with their kids; teachers with their students; employers with employees.

Responsibility can be taught, can be learned.

So: why is reproductive responsibility (teaching it, learning it) any different?

It's just a given: if one is self-restraining (self-responsible) sexually, one won't get pregnant or impregnate.

Another given: catering to irresponsibility leads to greater irresponsibility

Repost it.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:23 pm As I say: if this thread irritates, if I irritate, you're free to indulge yourself elsewhere.

It's not the thread which irritates me. It's idiots like you who can't seem to accept the obvious...and in addition who keep on changing the title of the thread because he's too stupid or too damn lazy to use the bloody quote button. One thing is clear, there's way too many fucking idiots on the planet.

Here it is...

Use it.

Dubious wrote: ↑...too stupid or too damn lazy to use the bloody quote button

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:39 pm A substance that's organic. That means nuthin'. A jar of dog spit is 'organic substance'. The goo I found next to the cat's food dish is probably an 'organic substance'.

Yes...organic substances come in MANY forms. And they can EVOLVE in various ways!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:39 pmNo, very clearly, what a pregnant woman carries is 'human'. The question is: is it human meat or a human being.

Well, that's the question you keep harping on because you're too thick to hear or consider anything beyond your TWO OPTIONS. An entire fricken Universe is all around you, and you're stuck on TWO OPTIONS. This or that. Black or white. Right or wrong. What a small world you endeavor to define, Henry.